Sunday, January 21, 2018

Many moons ago, Boston Catholics were relieved to hear Cardinal Sean O'Malley was appointed to the Boston see. Cardinal O'Malley had previously been assigned to the neighboring diocese of Fall River, whose reputation for faithfully catechizing its people was well known to us. We assumed teaching the practice of living every day in a state of Sanctifying Grace was done under the leadership of Cardinal O'Malley.

But, a few short years after Cardinal O'Malley's appointment to Boston, the catechesis was handed over to the dogs, the administration was filled with high-ranking Soros puppets from the DNC who surrendered Catholics schools and hospitals to apostates, forbade Catholic moral teaching and treated faithful Catholics shabbily.

The Boston's Lavender Mafia finally received the traction and power Cardinal Law had been preventing. Cardinal O'Malley exhibited great hostility and contempt towards families who expected his administration to properly catechize the people we love.

He instituted a policy that priests would be removed upon ANY allegation of sexual misconduct, no matter how ludicrous. Even if the accuser had no evidence and the accused had evidence exonerating himself. The treatment of accused was vicious, malicious and violated civil, constitutional and canonical laws. The pastoral cruelty to accused was (and remains) exasperating.

(You may also recall that during the conclave to elect the Pope, the DNC's Soros puppets controlling Cardinal O'Malley arrived in Rome and began a public media campaign to pitch Cardinal O'Malley for Pope. It was a definite DNC politically-operated campaign in the media. The Holy See had to tell them to knock it off.)

I remember picking up the phone to call a few priests and lay leaders in Fall River to express my bewilderment at this 180 degree turnaround and asking them if Cardinal O'Malley had governed and shepherded Fall River to orthodoxy. I was consistently told that the orthodoxy had nothing to do with Cardinal O'Malley. It had preceded him. He was described as a weak bishop who would go along with the wind and it just so happened that the wind in Fall River was orthodoxy.

Given the kangaroo court Cardinal O'Malley put into practice and his treatment of accused priests, Boston Catholics were not happy to see his appointment to the Vatican's 'sexual abuse advisory board'. We had concerns Boston's kangaroo court would be instituted at the highest levels of Christ's Mystical Body. I haven't followed the internal politics of the 'sexual abuse advisory board', but a few years back when alleged victims placed on the board complained the Holy See would not implement their recommendations, I wondered if Boston's kangaroo court was getting resistance from just people in the Holy See.

Initial media reports on Cardinal O'Malley's influence in Rome suggested he served as one of Pope Francis top advisors. As this article notes, he and Pope Francis were in constant contact. Strangely, every time a faithful Catholic Bishop was accused of mismanaging sexual abuse complaints, Cardinal O'Malley fled into the public square to throw calumnies and slander about against the faithful Bishop.

This article also illustrates the associated but peculiar phenomenon of simultaneously defending spiritual abusers.

O’Malley was more direct in his comments on the investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, calling it “a disaster.”

Investigating 50 years of allegations of spiritual misconduct made by victims of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious came to a screeching halt. The coven of unfaithful apostate nuns were immediately enabled to continue the spiritual abuse of the multitude.

But, something strange is doing down.

Over the course of the past few days, I smell badly burned toast around Cardinal O'Malley's influence in Rome and the relationship with the Holy Father.

Pope Francis apparently told Chilean Catholics that not a shred of evidence has been presented to incriminate Bishop Barros of knowing a priest in his diocese was sexually abusing children and refusing to do something about it. He said if there was evidence, he would act upon it. But after diligent review, these allegations appear to be calumny and slander.

As I was yelling "Good for him!!!", what to my wondering eyes should appear?

"It is understandable that Pope Francis' statements ... were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator," O'Malley said in the statement. "Words that convey the message 'if you cannot prove your claims then you will not be believed' abandon those who have suffered reprehensible criminal violations of their human dignity and relegate survivors to discredited exile."

Cardinal O'Malley thinks finding out if the accused is innocent or guilty and taking actions accordingly, can't be part of due process. The accused needs to be abandoned to suffer reprehensible violations of human dignity and relegated to discredited exile. This is his idea of justice.

This is definitely not a misunderstanding. This is how he operates.

As many Boston priests can attest, Cardinal O'Malley does not believe evidence of guilt or innocence should be part of the forum of justice inside of the Church. When a priest has evidence that exonerates him, the allegations are impossible - this is construed as a 'source of great pain' to the accuser making the false allegations. The priest must be robbed of his vocation, even when allegations can be proven to be false or there is absolutely no evidence to the incident took place.

Even one case of a substantiated and proven priest sexual abuser is too much. The Church ordained sexual abusers and mismanaged these situations, causing great pain and scandal. It was an abuse of power.

But the number of false and unsubstantiated allegations is overwhelming. It's over the top. And the treatment of these priests, their due process, is simply another manifestation of internal abuse of power.

It's possible I'm mistaken about the fractured relationship and power. All I can tell you is, when Cardinal O'Malley is challenged, he runs into the public square to throw you under the bus. When CJ and I, Boston Catholic Insider, Judie Brown and numerous other Catholics had to explain why he can't enter into a contract to outsource abortions or give the uncatechized the impression that a career of rabid advocacy of abortion does not obstruct one's salvation, Cardinal O'Malley took to the press to accuse us of "doing irreparable damage to the communion of the Church" and "doing a great disservice to the Church".

Rather than just admitting signing a contract to hire somebody to kill somebody else is "doing a great disservice to the Church", rather than going into the public square and saying politicians who use their power to advocate and advance killing certain groups of people "does "irreparable damage to the communion of the Church", he uses the media to accuse people exposing it.

Wasn't that the exact problem that led to protecting corruption?

Allegations must be substantiated and proven. Their credibility may not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but information gathering has to come to a conclusion that there is a likelihood that something screwy was going on. According to Pope Francis, upon review of facts, there is no evidence incriminating Bishop Barros of enabling the abuser. To what end would a Catholic Cardinal run to the press to announce that the Church's disposition of accused persons must not be predicated upon examining credible evidence?

I don't mean to be unkind, but does he realize how absurd this is?

It's a violation of canonical law, civil law, constitutional law and most importantly, you are asking the Church to bear false witness against the accused by omission and commission.

If finding out whether the accused is innocent or guilty hurts accuser's feelings, that has to be dealt with pastorally. We don't obstruct truth and justice and mistreat another human being.

21 comments:

Anonymous
said...

We are in utter pandemonium. It is beyond any rational understanding and completely lacking in decency to presume guilt based upon an accusation, alone. Any person who holds to such nonsense is unfit in any type of leadership position. Simply because an accusation relates to an act or acts of incredible moral repugnance, is no justification for presuming guilt.

But Cardinal "O'Malice" is far from alone. It is mind boggling that so many people agree with such presumptions of guilt. Such thoughts/beliefs will ultimately lead to anarchy and civil war or they will lead to oppression that will make America, Stalin/Hitleresque.

Even dubious "allegations" against faithful priests are enough to remove them. Or perhaps an unfaithful priest with porn on his computer can bring down a faithful bishop. But there were many speaking against the assignment of a bishop for good reasons and they are ignored and called names thus leading to more souls being disgusted with the high placed men and thus the Church. New scandals weekly and sometimes daily. We can only look to the Good Shepherd and cling to Him and Our Lady.

My gut is also telling me that something is up, something is happening all over the world. We may be at a turning point, I don’t know....Sexual abusers are being called out in all walks of life, not just Hollywood. Porn stars are committing suicide right and left (3 or 5 in the past maybe three months alone - don’t remember the exact number - widespread despair within that immoral industry?). Pope Francis makes a statement, which angers a great number of people in Chile/Peru, that credible evidence is needed for action to be taken against accused abusers (innocent until proven guilty), and this also apparently angers Cardinal O’Malley? Something, as you say, is going down.

Something in the realm of the morality of human sexuality may be about to explode upon our society. I hope and pray that we are about to witness the return of solid traditional Christian sexual ethics. Please God make it so!

"Juan Carlos Cruz has publicly accused Father Karadima of abusing him and alleges that Bishop Barros was present when this happened, though the bishop categorically denies it."https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/01/18/calumny-pope-francis-defends-bishop-barros-against-charges-he-knew-sexual-abuse

https://twitter.com/jccruzchellew/status/953992484140519424“As if one could have taken a selfie or a photo while Karadima abused me and others and Juan Barros standing next to him watching everything. These people from above are crazy and @Pontifex is talking about reparation to the victims. We remain the same and his forgiveness remains empty.”

I don't know what Mr. Cruz's credibility in this whole thing is, but if he was a Karadima victim (my understanding is that this is not under dispute) then this would be eyewitness testimony which is not zero evidence even if it doesn't reach the level of actionable for some reason which would mean the charge of calumny is wrong.

How could you possibly write that facts are not in dispute when your own account states that Bishop Barros disputes it?

The likelihood of a reasonably prudent and just person sitting in the room with some popcorn and lemonade to watch a child being sodimized and do nothing about it is not credible. So examining that allegation takes into account the how Bishop Barris has behaved in the past. If that allegation is inconsistent with his nature, if he denies it, if he has proof he was elsewhere, those things are factored into the determination of credibility.

Not everyone who claims they slept with John F Kennedy actually did. Nobody would dispute he was unfaithful.

If a person came along and said I was in the room when they were raped and did nothing about it, I would think that my 20 year history in the public square would be enough for most people who know me to conclude that is a lie. It is impossible to my nature. But there is always going to be people who just don't give a damn enough to think it through, or for whatever reason, they are going to go along with every single accusation. That's why so many women were burned as witches in Salem. It happens.

I'm trying to be very precise here. Bp. Barros disputes that he witnessed Mr. Cruz being abused. I was under the impression that there was no denial that Mr. Cruz was a victim of Karadima. I understand the concern about fairness to the accused but it's indefensible to charge an accuser with calumniating Barros on merely on the basis of Barros' denial (as it would be unjust to charge Barros merely on the basis of Cruz's accusation).

As far as a question of it being in-character or out-of-character, that's generally not sufficient evidence to exonerate someone without other exculpatory evidence. I don't think Cruz's accusation should be taken as true just because he says it, but its the charge that he's calumniating that is bothersome. There might be some evidence I'm not aware of, but all I see are insults.

This was the article I read:

"Cruz and four other men testified at a 2010 criminal proceeding against Karadima, which ended on a statute of limitations dismissal. However, the judge delivered a stinging report on Karadima, who denied all the accusations.

The Karadima scandal ignited national media coverage of a kind never seen before in Chile, causing outrage against church leadership.

The Vatican opened a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith investigation, which took testimony from the same men and in 2011 ordered Karadima to a “life of prayer and penitence.”"

Yes, I think we can trust the CDF. They don't have a dog in the fight. But it's logical to draw the conclusion they also examined the allegation against Barros and found it not credible.

Of course Cruz's accusation can't be taken as true just because he says it. He's got to have facts that can be verified by going back into history.

It would be a disservice to Christ to permit a Cardinal to implement due process that incriminates and convicts accused upon the say-so of the accuser. He got away with it in Boston, but lay people did everything they could to document the debauchery. I hope and pray someone in St. Peter's Square has shown it the door!

"He (Francis)said if there was evidence, he would act upon it. But after diligent review, these allegations appear to be calumny and slander. As I was yelling "Good for him!!!", what to my wondering eyes should appear?"

Are you going to be the last person on earth to figure out Francis' schtick? You believe the guy who keeps Ricca, Daneels and Maradiaga around cares one whit about protecting children? or is even the slightest bit concerned about the reputation of a supposedly innocent bishop? C'mon....I completely get your disgust with O'Malley but I'll trust the folks in Chile over Francis any day of the week.

I'm unaware of the CDF passing any judgment and could not find any document on that on the innocence or guilt of Barros. Do you have a cite for that? In any case, this article indicates that there was a second eye-witness that corroborated Mr. Cruz.

M, The CDF doesn't produce documents declaring innocence when they review evidence and deem an allegation is not credible and they do not need to move forward on it. Just like if your neighbor said you stole his car but they find the car in his own garage. There is no process to give you documentation of your innocence.

You are talking to a person who has absolute knowledge of accusers who rally people to affirm their lie.

There is no civil, criminal, constitutional or canonical process which a practicing Catholic can get behind that convicts an accused on the accuser's say so. It's unjust and inconsistent with the conduct and mission of Christ.

The malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance of Pope Francis is 90% of what I've been writing about for four years! I'm against the Church not investigating an allegation, asking the accuser to produce facts and evidence, giving the accused a timely opportunity to defend himself and returning a priest/bishop/Cardinal to active duty in circumstances when there is nothing in his history and the investigation leads to nothing.

The idea that practicing Catholics would accept due process that tells accusers they will always be believed, even if they have no evidence, facts and the accused has evidence that exonerates him - is mind boggling. I could not look Christ in the Face if I caved to this kind of hysteria and kangaroo court.

"The likelihood of a reasonably prudent and just person sitting in the room with some popcorn and lemonade to watch a child being sodomized and do nothing about it is not credible." You're making a big assumption about Barros.

"Barros is accused by the victims of having been in the room, watching at the time, and of engaging in sexual activity with Karadima." More here: https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3684-special-report-pope-francis-accused-of-inaction-in-notorious-sex-abuse-cases

From the book,“The Dictator Pope”:“In fact his patronage of Monsignor Ricca fits the pattern which was well established when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, whereby he surrounds himself with morally weak people so as to have them under his thumb.” This is Francis' schtick and no, you don't get it.

“In fact his patronage of Monsignor Ricca fits the pattern which was well established when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, whereby he surrounds himself with morally weak people so as to have them under his thumb.”

If that's true, then that explains why Cardinal Burke and his fellow bishops have backed off in confronting Francis with their dubia concerning AL.

Edison, I've made numerous attempts to say that convicting a person and taking away their livelihood without evidence is not something Catholics can support. You are going way overboard to make it more complicated.

It seems that the CDF had http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/02/pope-benedicts-cdf-barred-barros.html warned about Bishop Barros and found the accusations by alleged victims credible (note that in Vatican trial proceedings the testimony of alleged witnesses to the crime are formally considered evidence). Again, we see that accusing these alleged victims of calumny is gravely evil. There does not appear to be exculpatory evidence for Barros at the time of the alleged crimes.

M, you've joined the crowd that wants the system of justice to be flipped. Allegations convict the accused unless the accused has exculpatory evidence. You better watch out - Christ has an incredible way of teaching you the hard way what you wish to impose upon others.

I've seen way too much to ever get caught up in the call to impose that kind of a kangaroo court on priests and bishops - or anyone else.